Cardinality and acceptable abstraction
From MaRDI portal
Publication:1704082
DOI10.1215/00294527-2017-0012zbMATH Open1436.03029OpenAlexW2768695153MaRDI QIDQ1704082FDOQ1704082
Authors: Roy T. Cook, Øystein Linnebo
Publication date: 8 March 2018
Published in: Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic (Search for Journal in Brave)
Full work available at URL: https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ndjfl/1510802482
Recommendations
Philosophical and critical aspects of logic and foundations (03A05) Philosophy of mathematics (00A30)
Cites Work
Cited In (12)
- Title not available (Why is that?)
- Grounding and auto-abstraction
- Which Abstraction Principles are Acceptable? Some Limitative Results
- FOR BETTER AND FOR WORSE. ABSTRACTIONISM, GOOD COMPANY, AND PLURALISM
- TWO-SORTED FREGE ARITHMETIC IS NOT CONSERVATIVE
- Notions of invariance for abstraction principles
- Categories for the neologicist
- Hume's big brother: Counting concepts and the bad company objection
- Abstraction and four kinds of invariance (or: what's so logical about counting)
- Is Hume’s Principle analytic?
- Some criteria for acceptable abstraction
- Identity and the cognitive value of logical equations in Frege's foundational project
This page was built for publication: Cardinality and acceptable abstraction
Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q1704082)